Slashdot Log In
The Economist Magazine Looks Outside For Insight
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:04 PM
from the next-big-thing dept.
from the next-big-thing dept.
An anonymous reader writes "All of traditional media is scrambling to remain relevant on the Net, but The Economist of London is taking it to extremes, with a skunkworks operation called Project Red Stripe. The magazine gathered six staffers from around the world, set them up in a London office, and gave them six months to come up with a radically new idea for the business. As a magazine for free markets, they figured others would have the best ideas — so are throwing open the doors for community input."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Business Model (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hired to come up with new ideas. Paid who knows how much $$. So rather than do any actual work, I'm going to let the internet schmucks do it for me! I just have to pick which ideas are best.
Man, I'm in the wrong job...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read the Economist religiously for several years. I firmly believe it to be probably the best magazine/newspaper out there. I subscribe despite their sub price being approximately 5 times that of Times or Newsweek or any other magazine out there.
That said, this is the most stupid idea I have ever heard out of them. They actually will compensate you, with a rocking 6-mo web-subscrption to economist.com (street value: roughly $50).
Perhaps the Economist should actually talk to their economis
Re:Business Model (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps the Economist should actually talk to their economists, and ask them what 'Incentive Compatability' means. $50 for a new revolutionary business idea surely isn't incentive compatible. If I were the Economist, I'd be terribly embarassed about this.
I couldn't agree more. They're failing at the first hurdle. Even worse, the terms upon which the idea is submitted basically means they can use the idea in any way they like and they will hold a patent on it. So it's not just getting a poor level of compensation for an idea, but giving that idea up for use by anyone except the Economist Group. Here are 4 clauses from their terms and conditions [projectredstripe.com]:
Parent
Re:Business Model (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not ascribe more evil than necessary.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not much different from VC'ers... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm hired to come up with new ideas. Paid who knows how much $$. So rather than do any actual work, I'm going to let the internet schmucks do it for me! I just have to pick which ideas are best.
Laugh as you might, but this is almost exactly what Venture Capital firms do. People beat on their door with business ideas, they pick the most profitable, dump some money in with ludicrously favorable (for them) terms, and see what happens.
One might say, "ah, but people benefit from VC money; here, people just get a magazine subscription." Well, I'd argue that the benefit to the idea-holder is about on par, comparing the two...
Parent
Model (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting how in every modern war, the government that wins (assuming there is anything even vaguely like a winner) invariably puts a very small group of top military minds in charge of the war effort, even to the point of managing relevant aspects of the economy. Losers do just the opposite -- they let their legislature, congress, senate, president, chairman, corporate interests, beauracrats, and cronies make war decisions. And naturally, they either make retarded decisions or they rob the public blind at the expense of the war effort.
Comittee thinking is a disease. The bigger the comittee, the worse it gets. Human collaborative efficiency for creative works tops out at around 4 or 5 people. If you hope to invent new paradigms, you'll be hard-pressed to accomplish it with even as many a three people, and even two is pushing it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This seems doomed to failure. You think comittee thinking is bad? Imagine a comittee of tens of thousands or more. Filtering good ideas out of the gibberish would be a gargantuan undertaking -- probably one that is more difficult than just thinking up your own ideas. Didn't the article say that they got some of the best minds in the business? So why would those great minds turn to a few thousand sub-mediocre minds? Given the choice, I'll take half a dozen smart people locked in a room with a whiteboard and an espresso machine over ten thousand jackasses making decisions by mob thinking. It's interesting how in every modern war, the government that wins (assuming there is anything even vaguely like a winner) invariably puts a very small group of top military minds in charge of the war effort, even to the point of managing relevant aspects of the economy. Losers do just the opposite -- they let their legislature, congress, senate, president, chairman, corporate interests, beauracrats, and cronies make war decisions. And naturally, they either make retarded decisions or they rob the public blind at the expense of the war effort. Comittee thinking is a disease. The bigger the comittee, the worse it gets. Human collaborative efficiency for creative works tops out at around 4 or 5 people. If you hope to invent new paradigms, you'll be hard-pressed to accomplish it with even as many a three people, and even two is pushing it
Everybody here disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Vietnam and Iraq is precisely the fact that they were run by committee. Congress got to periodically hamstring the war effort, senators got to earmark funds for projects that did nothing more than keep useless people employed, generals couldn't agree on how to wage the war and were going in a dozen directions at once. In
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if the garguatuan dataset was the filtered through a community process ? like everyone can submit ideas and everyone can vote for the ideas they like best ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pyramid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"They waged war by committee, legislature, blah blah blah".
There were a couple of countries in "the modern era" that were extremely authoritarian in model (Germany, Japan) and who lost a fairly big skirmish to countries that were anything but (USA, England) who both had huge r
Ok, here's the deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I thought when I saw "Project Red Stripe". You get to sit back, kick around ideas, and pound back lots of Jamaican beer [wikipedia.org]? How sweet of a job is that?
(Red Stripe -- It's beer! Hooray beer!)
Red Stripe Beer? (Score:4, Funny)
[exec 1] *glug* *glug* *glug* *belch* Yeah, like lets ask the Internet what to to...
[exec 2] whadda we gonna call it? *glug* *glug*
[exec 1] [voice type=bevis-n-butthead] hu-hu-hu hu-uh like Red Stripe hu-hu-hu
SciTechPulse. Geek News Netcast. Hot Polynesian Geek Chick Host Silulu. [scitechpulse.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Damn...project blue stripe!"
The plan so far (Score:5, Insightful)
The magazine gathered six staffers from around the world, set them up in a London office, and gave them six months to come up with a radically new idea for the business.
In the first week, the staffers bought beer, wine, wisky, condoms, flat screen televisions and gaming consoles.
In the second week, the staffers hired a young graphic artist through the internet for $35 per hour to set up a rudimentary web page asking for innovative ideas.
The next 5 months is a blur.
The final two weeks were a flurry of activities. So many good ideas to review! So little time!
Hint #1 - lose the "Web 2.0" crap. (Score:2)
Now, decide upon what your content will be that will make it different or more useful than all the other content out there. That's hint #2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll qualify this troll-like statement by pointing out that The Economist IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING CONTENT. Take a look at their website, since you've obviously never even heard of the little magazine they run that puts Newsweek and Time to shame, and you'll realize how uninformed your comment is: http://www.economist.com/index.html [economist.com]
Hold on... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, ok. for a price I'll let them in on a way to turn their debt into wealth following my easy five step program. Soon, they will be able to afford the lifestyle they deserve. This is a risk free, money back guarantee on how to turn their outstanding debt into outstanding wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, could not resist (Score:3, Funny)
2. Let the people on Internet do your work.
3. Profit!
recursive business (Score:4, Funny)
You Can't Create Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)
From the Economist's standpoint, however, creating an "innovation group" seems misguided. You can't *cause* innovation and creativity; you can only *allow* it to happen on its own. This occurs through maximal exposure to atypical influences, such as books, activities, people, and entertainment that one might not ordinarily choose. This, in fact, is how the brain grows -- by forming new synaptic pathways among its neurons.
The Economist, or any organization, can best innovate by encouraging *all* its employees to, in the course of their ordinary work, occasionally take a moment to submit to management their views of how the organization's processes or other aspects can be improved, as it occurs to them. Good management must know how to create this culture. Everyone can be an innovator.
Okay by me (Score:2)
Deal killer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure as hell not giving a money-making idea to the Economist Group if I'm not getting a piece of the pie. If it might save the world, maybe; if it's not money-making and helps folks, I probably would.
Dogbert-esque (Score:5, Funny)
Never give a sucker an even break (Score:2, Insightful)
seen the NGASAEB W.C. Fields quote in The Economist many times so this mindset may actually exist in thier mission statement somewhere. However,
I have a list of ideas in my head that I would like to see happen but know I will never make them happen. Ideas--even really good ones--are cheap. The hard
part is making them happen. If they can extract something u
They deserve to be (Score:3, Informative)
That said, that's what the so-called "business consultants" do anyway. So what do you expect?
(Note: I'm a long time Economist reader, I like it, although I do not necessarily agree with their sometimes-very-conservative view. I think they should throw those fuckheads out of the window instead of wasting time there.)
Re: (Score:2)
They gathered their most notorious underachievers in one spot -- and set them up to hang themselves?
Potentially good idea -- but so far looks pretty shitty.
Who are these staffers? (Score:2)
And What's to Bet.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure... (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight. You send them your "crappy back of the napkin idea", and they'll use their razor sharp Oxbridge eyes to spot its actual brilliance. (You didn't even *know* it was brilliant. Afgterall, you're just some dolt in a bar.)
Yes, these chosen ones have a unique talent: not for actually generating ideas, but for "knowing it when they actually see it". \
Now here's the question: Let's just say for the sake of argument you had the most incredible idea for a media company in the history of corporate media.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just say for the sake of argument you had the most incredible idea for a media company in the history of corporate media...
You're missing the point. Ideas all by themselves are worthless. You have to actually take big risks to do something with them to create value. Anybody who thought of the next "most incredible media company" has 3 options,
1- interrupt their busy schedule, miss their kids soccer games, likely quite their job, and then dedicate a good portion of their lives trying to get seed money.
2- share it with their bar buddies and tell themselves it would probably never work anyway.
3 - or toss their idea at
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see: Good idea + Effort = Success .No Idea + Effort = Failure
or. . . . . . .
If you refuse to value ideas, then you get NOTHING. Why should I? For all I know I might have use for it in the future, or I might find the effort to exploit it myself. Not telling you maintains its value; telling you loses it.
Personally I'd say that a good idea has more worth to a company than the CEO, since its been shown time and again that most CEOs ha
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: (Score:2)
I've got this brilliant idea ... (Score:2)
BUT I'll share it with you lot only after I see a few million dollars / pounds / euros / whatevers. Yup, it'll work absolutely guaranteed!
The Economist is the best.. (Score:2)
Cantor Fitzgerald comes to mind... (Score:3, Informative)
In the early 1990's, it became apparent that their traditional way of doing business was going away. The future lay in electronic trading, not in suits talking on phones. The problem was their entire culture was built up around the brokers working the phones. They soon realized that changing the entire culture of how they did business would be nearly impossible.
They realized that failure to change meant that newer startups would be soon coming online to take advantage of electronic trading, and that they would be doomed to a slow death of attrition as the competition cannibalized the marketplace.
Rather than waiting to be cannibalized by some unknown competitor, they decided to create their own competition, to create their own cannibalizing agent. Thus was the birth of eSpeed which went public in 1999. As the broker/dealer market declined, the eSpeed market took up the slack and eventually consumed the old guard completely.
The transition was so successful that before 9/11, Cantor handled about one-quarter of the daily transactions in the multi-trillion dollar treasury security market. The fourth quarter of 2001, after losing 2/3 their workforce, Cantor Fitzgerald posted a 25% profit.
Today, thousands of traders at hundreds of global financial institutions conduct transactions worth over $45 trillion annually in eSpeed's multiple buyer/multiple seller markets.
%-%-%
Traditional media is scrambling to remain relevant on the Net because the 1:1 communication provided by the internet has completely decimated their existing business model. They are used to owning the information gathering and distribution networks.
I have now completely abandoned the print media because I know that the reporting I will read is going to be one-sided, heavily slanted, while at the same time professing complete objectivity. How many print newspapers have had to shut down the online feedback on their editorial pages because the blowback was so overwhelming that they couldn't tolerate it?
Digg is nothing but a groupthink mob rules mentality with no decent way to hold an actual conversation, which is fine because the one thing the groupthink mob mentality abhors is open discussion, so Digg is a perfect match for them. The positive result is that the level of discourse on Slashdot forums have risen significantly now that the Diggers have gone.
I say that the future for The Economist would look a lot like Slashdot's discussions, where experts from around the world can opine on the news of the day.
I have more to add, but it is getting late.
It's their advertising agency's idea? (Score:2)
Why else would the team be situated at AMV-BBDO
Our digs are at AMV-BBDO, The Economist's ad agency, on Marylebone Road in London. Take a look at our web cam.
And Ad agencies (I've worked in one) are usually credited for such poor ideas..
Tilting at windmills (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also add that electronic media hasn't caught up to paper media in the area of convenience. I can roll up a copy of the Economist and stick it in my back pocket and read it while I'm waiting in the doctor's office. To read the Economist.com I have to take a laptop (or at the very least a PDA) and I have to somehow get the articles downloaded onto it first or rely on wi-fi service wherever I'm going.